24fandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Macys' Plaza
Relevance? Surely articles like this need a least a passing relevance to part of the plot? Is this only seen in the background of the car chase, or does it appear more prominently than the article wording suggests?--Acer4666 17:15, February 8, 2011 (UTC) : Yes this kind of thing has bugged me for awhile now. Would you support a policy addendum that outlines the inclusion criteria for articles based on significance? Places where characters actually go, and things they actually use, are great. But stuff that's completely in the background is a distraction from the real work, and, worse, it's all un-linkable. I'll post it in the Situation Room if you think this is a good idea, you can add thoughts there and maybe get a discussion going. 05:15, February 9, 2011 (UTC) ::Yeah I'd defs support that - I suppose you may be also referring to the 'map of the world' in Day 7 that spawned all those country articles? ::I think maybe a section in the manual of style about general inclusion criteria for all sorts of things: eg the characters/unnamed characters/forbidden characters criteria, unnamed locations criteria, category:images (character) criteria, etc? Just to get all these precedents that have been set together in one place, along with some examples of each type of article? I dno what you think--Acer4666 13:06, February 9, 2011 (UTC) : That's a great idea: just made a thread about it here. 14:26, February 14, 2011 (UTC) Are you suggesting that pages like this should be disallowed, Blue Rook? I figure that as long as there's some IU information, it could get very difficult to objectively determine what's permissible or not. And besides, isn't more information better than less? --proudhug 03:16, February 16, 2011 (UTC) :You're right that more information is better than less, but I think it has to be organised right - I mean, I could make about 100 articles like this Macys' plaza one from series 1 alone, all of which would say the same thing ('suchandsuch' was seen on a sign in episode X'). But what would be better, if someone wanted to list proper nouns that were fleetingly seen on signs, would be 1 article with them listed together, for example. So I suppose that does disallow an article like this, but doesn't remove the information from the wiki. And there are other examples of when wiki 24 policy has to objectively make up rules about how significant something is before its permissible.--Acer4666 15:38, February 16, 2011 (UTC) I'm wondering what the criteria would be, then. Personally, I think that as long as an IU description is able to be linked to other pages, that is sufficient reason to include it, but it seems you guys disagree. And, by the way, this article isn't written IU. Plazas don't just "appear" when people go by them. --proudhug 16:12, February 16, 2011 (UTC) : I know it's not IU - that's why I think we should get rid of it, it's very hard to talk about a sign that was just seen in the background without referring to when it was "seen" in the show! : My criteria might be - for mentioned locations that are not actually visited by a character, the name has to be spoken (or written for novels etc). Then locations that are seen on screen could be used on larger articles ('countries featured on 24' or something). This is just something off the top of my head, I haven't thought it through, and I suppose it would mean culling a lot of articles linked from the character profiles, so maybe not such a hot idea. I dunno, it's a tough one, and I don't definitely disagree with you about inclusion criteria, I'm open to debate, what I write is normally just my first reaction to an article like this Macy's Plaza one.--Acer4666 16:37, February 16, 2011 (UTC) This is a great discussion because it needed to happen at some point. Now, at least 2 other editors have been making articles like this, they are working in good faith, but the significance of the content is such that they cannot realistically be linked, and worse, nothing intelligent iu can be said about them. An important criterion is the nature of the appearance of the name. The huge question I ask myself is: can the name in question be connected to show events, people, or a iu list; or is it really just completely "background" details? So, what does everyone say about the following? if a college/business/city/etc appears on a dossier/profile, we can include it because it appears in connection with a character. But if it's something in passing in the background, such as an office, address, or business that the camera scans past, then it's a no-go. Even if it's in close proximity to a significant place like the CTU Building, 12451 Arlington Avenue, whatever. What matters is if a character directly interacted with it. Similar is the topic of names. We have always been making articles for people, even ones like James Devere, who appear in lists and who don't even seem to have a "crew member" connection. This is fine, because at least one important name appears in each list and it's for the sake of completeness to include all the others. Plus many have those notable crew connections; even those without known crew connections are good too. But we should draw the line at stuff like "Orlani" (on the foreman's door in Season 2) which may not even be real character's a name—how many Tony's Pizzerias actually were founded by a Tony?—and names connected to background businesses that are just barely visible... like "Macy's" or some chiropractor's office that somebody walks past. In short, my position is: it would be insane to have a "for the sake of completeness" argument for stuff that is not spoken. This would mean we'd eventually have to make articles for every billboard company, every soda can, every coffee shop, ever seen! That sort of waste of time would be a mockery of the project. I'm willing to compromise about country names revealed in a "background" manner, like those seen underneath Knowles' corpse on the Starkwood map. Personally I really think those are useless and incredibly distracting to include, but everyone seems to like them. After that, though, I think it's good to draw the line with cities/provinces/municipalities and smaller. 20:13, February 16, 2011 (UTC) : Wow. I think you hit the nail on the head, Rook. I can 100% agree with everything you listed (for once, haha!). The only thing that bugs me about setting these limitations is that I know Memory Alpha would never restrict these things. However, MA has a luxury we don't; 99.999% of the things that appear anywhere in a Star Trek episode/movie have to be deliberately put there by the set dressers. Since there are so few exceptions to this (Star Trek IV being one of them), it's no big deal to include an article for something like a "Tony's Pizza" seen in the background of 1986 San Francisco, or especially some shop seen in the background of the Deep Space Nine promenade. --proudhug 21:06, February 16, 2011 (UTC) :: I'm glad you guys feel that way. And I do recognize the unique situation of Memory Alpha; it is indeed unfortunate that such a detail-controlled environment could not exist with the filming of 24. I used our old precedents, as well as Talk:Macys' Plaza and Forum:Article for Bill's safe house to establish the inclusion policy. We can tweak it if necessary but if I may request, let's keep any new discussion about it to the policy Talk itself. 11:40, March 24, 2011 (UTC)